If Bridgewater is on Matt Ryan's level, you take him.. Look at what Matt Ryan has become. He's a franchise QB and the Falcons are perennial playoff contenders because of that. You pick Clowney and he becomes Julius Peppers, you're gonna be picking in the top 10 again until you find yourself a franchise QB.

What if you pick Clowney and he becomes LT? He is the caliber of prospect who can single handidly turn an average defense into an elite one. You don't need a top QB if your defense only gives up 14 points per game. If Bridgewater grades out after this year as a franchise QB then I am all for taking him 1st, but I'm not reaching because he's a QB when you have an all world prospect sitting there

I can't believe I'm saying this, but SP is the smartest person in this thread. Take a guy like Matt Ryan. He wasn't even an elite prospect. He went to a team that had never had consecutive winning seasons in their history. He took them to the playoffs 4 of his first 5 years. What pass rusher has ever had that kind of impact? None.

Is Clowney the best player in this draft almost certainly. But I would take a guy of Matt Ryan's skill (if that is who you want to compare Bridgewater's potential with) and Bjoern Werner over Clowney and Andy Dalton any day to the week and it isn't even close.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolidGold

Bortlezzzzzzz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monomach

Brilliant letting one of Scott Pioli's henchmen have his own team to ruin. One of the premier GM jobs in the NFL and it gets handed to a stupid **** who makes three facepalm moves for every good one. Awesome. Just like handing a new Mercedes to a 16 year old girl who's already been in three wrecks.

I'd still take Clowney. Super Bowl championship teams aren't built in a year, I don't know why people think that because you need a franchise quarterback, you have to draft one this year. They're actually pumped out fairly regularly. As much as I like Teddy Bridgewater, he isn't a rare prospect; Clowney is. In most draft classes you're going to find QBs of Bridgewater's status, but only once every few years are you going to find a player like Clowney. Take Clowney and find your QB elsewhere, perhaps FA if the chances are right, or perhaps next year's draft. At worst, you're picking number one overall again, but now you get your franchise quarterback and Clowney. If Clowney helps your team enough, you can still grab franchise quarterbacks outside of the top five, and you can also trade up if necessary. Either way, you'll have your shot at a player like Bridgewater fairly soon, you won't have your shot at a player like Clowney.

What if you pick Clowney and he becomes LT? He is the caliber of prospect who can single handidly turn an average defense into an elite one. You don't need a top QB if your defense only gives up 14 points per game. If Bridgewater grades out after this year as a franchise QB then I am all for taking him 1st, but I'm not reaching because he's a QB when you have an all world prospect sitting there

Maybe if this was 1980.

With the way the NFL is set up and with the way the top tier QBs can get rid of the ball quick as hell, neutralizing top tier pass rusher you HAVE to be able to put up points.

I think Bridgewater is a better QB prospect then RG3 and if you have a guy even on RG3's level or better(which again, I think TB will be) than you HAVE to take him over any defensive player. You build a team around a franchise QB, not a DE.

You don't wait to grab a franchise QB. Let's say the Jaguars go 2-14 and take Clowney over Bridgewater. But who cares, we'll have a chance to get a franchise QB next year. Will they? If they go 6-10 the next year and pick 9th, the top QBs might be gone. And if they go 2-14 and get the top pick, the GM and coach get fired.

Oakland passed on a franchise QB to take the safe Robert Gallery. How did that work out? Miami thought it was smart to take the better prospect in Jake Long than go with a potential franchise QB. They proceeded to go 38-42 while the Matt Ryan led Falcons went 56-24.

We don't know how the QBs will progress. If t the end of the season, the top QB is graded out similar to Geno Smith or Andy Dalton, of course you take Clowney. But with the assumption he is a Matt Ryan type prospect (mid-first rounder or higher), you take the QB.

__________________

Quote:

Originally Posted by SolidGold

Bortlezzzzzzz

Quote:

Originally Posted by Monomach

Brilliant letting one of Scott Pioli's henchmen have his own team to ruin. One of the premier GM jobs in the NFL and it gets handed to a stupid **** who makes three facepalm moves for every good one. Awesome. Just like handing a new Mercedes to a 16 year old girl who's already been in three wrecks.

You don't wait to grab a franchise QB. Let's say the Jaguars go 2-14 and take Clowney over Bridgewater. But who cares, we'll have a chance to get a franchise QB next year. Will they? If they go 6-10 the next year and pick 9th, the top QBs might be gone. And if they go 2-14 and get the top pick, the GM and coach get fired.

9th? Lets just take a look at the franchise quarterbacks in the league:

You can add in guys like Schaub and Romo if you like. But based on that list, how many taken in the top ten? 8. How many taken outside the top ten? 8. Since 2000, how many Super Bowls have been won by quarterbacks taken in the top ten? 4. How many won by quarterbacks taken outside of the top ten? 9. You don't need a top ten pick to find a franchise quarterback, plain and simple. And if you do really fancy someone expected to go in that range, you can always trade up.

Quote:

Originally Posted by jrdrylie

Oakland passed on a franchise QB to take the safe Robert Gallery. How did that work out? Miami thought it was smart to take the better prospect in Jake Long than go with a potential franchise QB. They proceeded to go 38-42 while the Matt Ryan led Falcons went 56-24.

Oakland then opted to take the risky JaMarcus Russell to get their franchise quarterback. How did that work out? The Jets traded up to take the risky Mark Sanchez to get their franchise quarterback. How did that work out? Just as easily as you can point to situations where teams passed on franchise quarterbacks and it didn't work out, I can point to situations where teams took risky prospects just to make sure they got a franchise quarterback, and it didn't work out. Selective examples prove absolutely nothing.

The Raiders don't count. Several years ago, the late Joel Buchsbaum pointed out that they drafted well during the two stints that Ron Wolf was Al Davis's top scout, and they sucked the rest of the time.

It doesn't even matter which side of the argument you're on. The Raiders are special. They don't count.

If Bridgewater is on Matt Ryan's level, you take him.. Look at what Matt Ryan has become. He's a franchise QB and the Falcons are perennial playoff contenders because of that. You pick Clowney and he becomes Julius Peppers, you're gonna be picking in the top 10 again until you find yourself a franchise QB.

Matt Ryan has been abysmal in the playoffs. He's not an elite quarterback or a franchise quarterback at this point. He's 1-4 in the playoffs. He's thrown 9 touchdowns and 7 interceptions, and he has an 85.2 rating.

Jadeveon Clowney can become a player that defensive coordinators have to specifically gameplan for.

Matt Ryan has been abysmal in the playoffs. He's not an elite quarterback or a franchise quarterback at this point. He's 1-4 in the playoffs. He's thrown 9 touchdowns and 7 interceptions, and he has an 85.2 rating.

Jadeveon Clowney can become a player that defensive coordinators have to specifically gameplan for.

Matt Ryan is more valuable than any defensive player in the league. Even if you're assuming Clowney becomes the best defensive player in the NFL, you still take Matt Ryan over him.

With the way the NFL is set up and with the way the top tier QBs can get rid of the ball quick as hell, neutralizing top tier pass rusher you HAVE to be able to put up points.

I think Bridgewater is a better QB prospect then RG3 and if you have a guy even on RG3's level or better(which again, I think TB will be) than you HAVE to take him over any defensive player. You build a team around a franchise QB, not a DE.

Matt Ryan is more valuable than any defensive player in the league. Even if you're assuming Clowney becomes the best defensive player in the NFL, you still take Matt Ryan over him.

I disagree. For instance, I'd take rather take pre-injury, in-his-prime Revis over Ryan. Why? Both will have profound impacts on their side of the ball, but the gap between Revis and the other corners is much larger than the gap between Ryan and the other quarterbacks. Thus finding an alternative to Ryan isn't as difficult, and thus he's not as valuable.

I disagree. For instance, I'd take rather take pre-injury, in-his-prime Revis over Ryan. Why? Both will have profound impacts on their side of the ball, but the gap between Revis and the other corners is much larger than the gap between Ryan and the other quarterbacks. Thus finding an alternative to Ryan isn't as difficult, and thus he's not as valuable.

It'll be pretty obvious who is more valuable when Matt Ryan gets paid...

That's very poor logic to assume that contract size equals on-the-field value. Using such logic, you could then argue that Charles Johnson was the most valuable player in the league in 2011.

Generally it does. There is no way to disagree with that.

It's why the best punter in the league doesn't get $20M and it's why no defensive player will ever get as much money as Matt Ryan is going to get.

Obviously it's different when you bring up a player that signed a contract and then didn't play up to it. But i'm talking about what Matt Ryan is going to get based on what he has shown so far. Whether he then goes on to play like Mark Sanchez for the rest of his career is irrelevant.

You can't just discard the fact that Matt Ryan is going to get paid $4M+ more than any defensive player in the league, by using Charles Johnson playing worse than his contract as an example.

You're making the flawed assumption that contract size directly correlates to a players impact on wins-and-losses. It's a nice ideal and that's what teams aim to do but often that's far from the truth.

It's why the best punter in the league doesn't get $20M and it's why no defensive player will ever get as much money as Matt Ryan is going to get.

Obviously it's different when you bring up a player that signed a contract and then didn't play up to it. But i'm talking about what Matt Ryan is going to get based on what he has shown so far. Whether he then goes on to play like Mark Sanchez for the rest of his career is irrelevant.

You can't just discard the fact that Matt Ryan is going to get paid $4M+ more than any defensive player in the league, by using Charles Johnson playing worse than his contract as an example.

All that indicates is itself, that he'll get $4M+ more than any defensive player in the league. It does indicate that he's actually that much more valuable than any defensive player in the league, simply that the Falcons would be willing to pay that much more in the league. Generally, yes, contract trends dictate that better players get more, and more impactful positions get more. But its not so simple as to point to a contract and thus deduce how valuable that player actually is. Position markets, poor scouting, economical/careless front offices, etc. all can impact what the final contract will be. You have to actually watch them play to have any idea of their value, using off-the-field indicators is pointless.

All that indicates is itself, that he'll get $4M+ more than any defensive player in the league. It does indicate that he's actually that much more valuable than any defensive player in the league, simply that the Falcons would be willing to pay that much more in the league. Generally, yes, contract trends dictate that better players get more, and more impactful positions get more. But its not so simple as to point to a contract and thus deduce how valuable that player actually is. Position markets, poor scouting, economical/careless front offices, etc. all can impact what the final contract will be. You have to actually watch them play to have any idea of their value, using off-the-field indicators is pointless.

Every team in the league would be willing to pay him that if they had a need at QB and had the cap space. It's ridiculous to fool yourself into thinking otherwise.

So you're saying every team would be wrong for giving that money to Matt Ryan over an elite defensive player?

No, I'm saying that contracts don't automatically equate worth. Whether or not a team should sign Matt Ryan over an elite defensive player involves a number of issues, namely existing team needs, the impact of those needs on team success, market value for each player, the difference between the players and similar alternatives, the capacity to actually acquire such alternatives, etc. No team should simply go, well QB X is getting paid more than DEF X, so we should obviously sign QB X who must be more valuable.